LITTLE ROCK (AP) - The Arkansas Supreme Court relinquished oversight of the state's long-running school funding case Friday, removing the big stick that prodded the Legislature to initiate the most sweeping changes in public education in a generation.

On a deeply divided court, dissenters warned that without the court looking over their shoulders, there were no guarantees that legislators would follow through on what they set in motion - reforms that will take as long as a decade to fully implement.

But in a 4-3 ruling, the court said it would not be a watchdog over the public education overhaul that it ordered.

"It is not this court's constitutional role to monitor the General Assembly on an ongoing basis over an extended period of time until the educational programs have all been completely implemented or until the dictates of (the court case) have been totally realized," Justice Robert L. Brown wrote in the majority opinion.

The Legislature this year approved a new $2.7 billion school funding formula and $370 million in new taxes to pay for reforms that include stricter school accounting and accountability, new help for failing students, particularly those who are poor; and for expanding preschool programs.

Legislators also passed the state's first school consolidation law, requiring administrative mergers of districts with fewer than 350 students.

The high court deemed the school improvements "truly impressive," particularly a new law that makes public education the state's top budget priority and would divert money from other state agencies to ensure adequate education funding.

The accolades were in stark contrast to the scolding tone the Supreme Court took in January in reclaiming jurisdiction of the school funding case after the Legislature missed a New Year's Day deadline for complying with the court's November 2002 edict to overhaul the public education system.

The 2002 decision declared the school funding system unconstitutional, saying the money wasn't distributed fairly and wasn't adequate to provide educational opportunities to all of Arkansas' 450,000 students. The court ordered the state to address its concerns.

A rural backlash to Gov. Mike Huckabee's plan to consolidate high schools in districts with fewer than 1,500 students derailed most significant changes in the 2003 regular session. Major moves came in a special session that convened Dec. 8.

"It's gratifying that it ultimately comes out that the Legislature was slow getting there but apparently finally satisfied the court," said Attorney General Mike Beebe, whose office represented the Legislature. "A subtle point that is significant is that while the court was evenly split on continuing jurisdiction, they were fairly unanimous in their praise of the action taken by the state."

Justices said that further school consolidation may be an inevitable part of building an efficient school system, but that closing schools was something for the Legislature and governor to decide, not the court.

At a news conference that followed release of the Supreme Court opinions, Huckabee lamented that ending high court oversight was a "red carpet for future litigation."

But the governor said the court's reference to the inevitability of further consolidation was a "tremendous affirmation of the position that we took" for broader school mergers to minimize the cost of fulfilling the court's order to provide an adequate education to all of Arkansas' public school students.

"They've given us a clear signal that the inability of the state to provide a full range of courses to every school student will still have to be addressed," Huckabee said. "If we're going to deliver what we are required by law to deliver, and do it at a cost that the taxpayers can afford, we have to make efficiency a part of it."

If the Legislature is willing to find and appropriate enough money to fully fund the 256 school districts that will remain when state-approved consolidation plans go into effect July 1, then so be it, Huckabee said.

"The issue is, when we find that we cannot do that, then as the court discussed, it becomes inevitable that we will have to have more consolidation," he said.

Dion Wilson of Helena, a lawyer for the Lake View School District, did not immediately return a call Friday. Former Lake View lawyer Bill Lewellen of Marianna, who has filed a federal lawsuit to stop the state's education reforms from going into place, also did not return numerous calls.

In a dissent, Justice Donald Corbin said the state's schools were still in "crisis" and it was wrong to close the case.

"I also do not agree with the majority that we should simply presume that government officials are going to do what they say they're going to do," Corbin wrote. He said the state failed to follow up on a similar 1983 case that ordered improved schools, and worried that another 21 years might elapse before effective changes are made.

The tiny Lake View School District sued the state in 1992, challenging the constitutionality of a system that allowed wide funding disparities between wealthy districts and poor ones.

Later, the Bentonville and Rogers school districts, two of the largest and wealthiest in the state, intervened with the claim that the state did not spend enough to ensure an adequate education for its students.

A Pulaski County chancellor ruled in May 2001 against the state, saying the funding system was inadequate and inequitable. The Supreme Court largely upheld the chancellor's decision and gave Arkansas until Jan. 1, 2004, to find remedies.

In the majority opinion Friday, Brown wrote that, although the case was over, the court remained committed to seeing that schools serve students.

"We will not waver in our commitment to the goal of an adequate and substantially equal education for all Arkansas students; nor will we waver from the constitutional requirement that our state is to 'ever maintain a general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools,'" Brown wrote.

Parties in the case were mixed on whether the justices should supervise the effectiveness of measures passed in the 2003 legislative session and two special sessions.

"I'm very pleased that the court recognized the work that we've done," House Speaker Herschel Cleveland, D-Paris, said. "The court doesn't have the case any more, but we still have the responsibility that we had before the ruling. I anticipated that the legislators will take care of their work."

Sen. Steve Bryles, D-Blytheville, said he was disappointed the court relinquished jurisdiction over the case.

"We needed the court's help within the legislative arena to make sure that we implemented the necessary reforms. Some people may view this as a chance to go back and undo some of the things that we've done," said Bryles, who sponsored legislation requiring annual testing and assessment of students, remediation of those who fall behind and greater accountability by schools for student performance.

Price Marshall of Jonesboro, lawyer for the state Chamber of Commerce, which demanded improvements in accountability, said the business community was pleased that the high court endorsed those changes.

"The state Chamber and Associated Industries of Arkansas take the court at its strong word that it is prepared to re-enter the education reform process if the General Assembly and the governor do not continue on the clear and laudable path that they've put our state on," Marshall said.

Sen. President pro tem Jim Hill, D-Nashville, said lawmakers were deserving of the court's praise for its work.

"The legislative accomplishments have been truly impressive," Brown wrote. He mentioned in particular the school accountability measures and the bill to ensure full funding of public schools.

Dissenting justices said the various plans that passed had no guarantees.

"For the first time in this Lake View litigation, our court is showing its timidity, or weakness, to finish what it started in the state's quest to provide a constitutional educational system for Arkansas school children," Justice Tom Glaze wrote in one dissent.

"There is no guarantee that the plan that has been initiated in the legislative furor following this court's decision ... will be followed beyond the 2004-2005 appropriations," Glaze wrote.

Chief Justice Betty Dickey also dissented.

In his separate dissent, Corbin noted that a $10 million study of school facilities has not been completed and that upgrading equipment and infrastructure at schools was a key provision of the court's November 2002 mandate.

"I am at a loss as to why the majority of this court believes our role in this crisis has been satisfied. By releasing the mandate, the majority essentially sends a message to the General Assembly that it has complied with our opinion in Lake View and that the schools of this state now pass constitutional muster," Corbin wrote. "That is simply not the case."

Legislators had missed their Jan. 1 deadline to make changes in the school system and wrapped up their second special session in mid-February. By then, justices had already voted to retake jurisdiction in the case and had appointed a pair of special masters to study the state's response to the Supreme Court 2002 decision. After a set of hearings, the masters presented a report to the court in April.